Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

I really don't think it's anymore profound than imagination or a projection of their own needs or feelings. Love is something anyone can feel, even platonic love for self or others. If you want to personally label it god, so be it.
 
Grantywanty said:
Lovely. Thank you for that.

The irony of rational empirical studies revealing that it might be best not to think much about complicated things.

And many of our decisions involve a very wide range of factors.
Click to expand...

There some potentially very important implications of the findings of such studies.

For example - Whether someone is a theist, an atheist, a rationalist, a vegetarian, or whatever, is most likely due to a complex decision that a person cannot rationally verbalize. So it is probably pointless to demand justification for why someone holds a particular stance.

And secondly, extreme skepticism can simply be the attempt to resolve a complex issue in a simplistic manner - and failing.
 
Grantywanty said:
We can't see into other people's minds.
Click to expand...

Sure we can. Their minds run across the surface of their bodies at the very least.
Click to expand...

*tsk tsk*


I would assume that you would want the belief to be correct also.
Click to expand...

I think some things would be a lot easier for me if I believed in God.


Yes, I think some of them see theists as being able to relax and accept where they never relax and accept.
Click to expand...

Yes.


It's like why we get mad about people who do things we do not allow ourselves to do.
Click to expand...

It's not about "allowing", though, it's not about something that would be within one's power to control. To me, it's about a completely different sphere of existence that I have no control over.


They are getting away with something. Or 'we' are since I am some form of theist.
Click to expand...

Yes, you get to be human, and saved.

We seek to figure out ways of salvation even at the cost of our "humanity".


I think anyone pursuing any goal is in some way narrow and shallow.
Click to expand...

I believe you. I don't think it is true, however. It is an ES position and has a defacto goal of not pursuing goals which will lead to a very specific life which also could be seen as narrow and shallow.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on.
For example, I don't know much about nuclear physics. In the eyes of people interested in nuclear physics, I am narrow and shallow.
 
What you don't see, greenberg, is that you find theists attractive. I've never met one that i really liked or respected.

I don't, so even their concept of "saved" is moot to me because i would not care to be in the same heaven or hell as they.

problem solved, for me.
 
Actually, I see theists as being very unevolved. Just the opposite of your idea that they have 'something' or 'know' something.

Why I don't envy them? I've been around them all my life and the thought that they are above or chosen instead of others is profoundly, ludicrously, madly preposterously insane. They are so unevolved and low vibrational. It's 'religiosity' for jeebus.

They have immature thinking and poor reasoning capacity much less have anymore spiritual insight than another, lmao. They are actually very rote in thinking unless in areas they are stumped and then go madly in the preposterous.

Um... i think you do resonate with those you supposedly are envious of. You admit you believe salvation is having something or knowing something, but more importantly whatever you perceive of their energy is appealing to you.

I don't find it the pinnacle of a possible 'salvation' and if it is, it's laughably pathetic to me.
 
A bit o the cost benefit should get that light bulb changed, even based in high skepticism. Experimental results damnit!

So sure maybe you're not in the dark, maybe you are. If it SEEMS like you're in the dark, try changing bulb. If it then SEEMS like you aren't in the dark, skepticism be damned!

If you are too skeptical to decide on how things SEEM, then it's obvious you don't really have a anything of which to be skeptical. *shrug*
 
wesmorris said:
A bit o the cost benefit should get that light bulb changed, even based in high skepticism. Experimental results damnit!

So sure maybe you're not in the dark, maybe you are. If it SEEMS like you're in the dark, try changing bulb. If it then SEEMS like you aren't in the dark, skepticism be damned!

If you are too skeptical to decide on how things SEEM, then it's obvious you don't really have a anything of which to be skeptical. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Oh, I like that take.

Yes, because if you are skeptical about everything than what you are left with is what seems to be true. So you have nothing to lose by seeming to fiddle with what seems.
 
greenberg said:
*tsk tsk*
Click to expand...
I was being polemical, but every day I read people and you do also I would guess. Certain top poker players and detectives see through more bluffs than not.

It's not about "allowing", though, it's not about something that would be within one's power to control. To me, it's about a completely different sphere of existence that I have no control over.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in relation to this God you do not experience. But in general to allow yourself to be certain. I think this is stifled a lot by many of us.


Yes, you get to be human, and saved.

We seek to figure out ways of salvation even at the cost of our "humanity".
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I got this. If by 'you' you meant me, I don't feel saved. Salvation is through my humanity, the whole of it, or not at all. Anything else seems like hitting my self with a hammer and saying I am bad. Well, how the hell would I know that then?


Oh, come on.
For example, I don't know much about nuclear physics. In the eyes of people interested in nuclear physics, I am narrow and shallow.
Click to expand...

I didn't get this either. I doubt nuclear physicists would consider narrow and shallow. But maybe you felt this was a logical extension of what I was saying. If so, it went over my head.
 
peta9 said:
Everyone is fiddling with what seems...to them.
Click to expand...


What's funny about that is that it's really all we have, idnit?

I mean, if you insist otherwise, aren't you appealing to some form of fallacy?
 
Grantywanty said:
No, because if seeming is all that is, then I can call it being. I see no reason to label the whole thing maya.
Click to expand...

Sure you can call it that, and for all practical purposes that can be what it is TO YOU... and to who knows how many others, but that's argument from popularity, or argument from authority no? (and pardon my edits please)

Oh and please forgive me, we all do the same but I'm trying to make a point of what we all do and ultimately what we all have to work with.


Pardon excessive edits:

How about this: If it seems x to me, but y to you... who is right? If we agree are we necessarily both right?

In the first case we could war over the fact that we are both right, and what would be determined is not what is right, but who is willing to war more. If we agree that we are both right and then someone disagrees with us, isn't it the same case except for now we form a group with whom to war upon those who dissent with our newly found popular opinion and authority?
 
Last edited:
wesmorris said:
Sure you can call it that, and for all practical purposes that can be what it is TO YOU... and to who knows how many others, but that's argument from popularity, or argument from authority no? (and pardon my edits please)
Click to expand...

It felt like reality was jumping. If you can do that in my house I will be more swayed by your argument.

I don't agree. It's like you are trying to say the word 'is' should be replaced by 'seems' in all cases. I see no reason to add another layer to my world. It would imply that 'is' is somewhere on the other side of or masked by. Or if we lose the idea of 'is' altogether I think we lose 'seems' also. Seems meaning 'seems to be'. Nothing would seem to be since that would be saying it was like something we never experience.

Chew on that.
 
Grantywanty said:
That sounds like a kind of isolationist philosophy. I can certainly fiddle with what seems to others also. And I can have repeated success with it.
Click to expand...

You can only fiddle with what you understand or think you understand of anything...still goes back to you, now doesn't it? That applies to everyone.
 
wesmorris said:
Or so it would seem.... lol.
Click to expand...

Nah. How would you know I am not in touch with the real. It might only seem, according to your own judgement of your experience, that I must be wrapped by seeming. You have no idea. I of course cannot prove to you I am in contact with the real. But I can easily disregard someone who claims they are only in contact with seeming.
 
I'd like to add that it seems like I am now in a dialogue with two people who think that really we only know about what seems to us as individuals. But both of you are trying to convince me that this IS THE WAY IT IS. And with quite a bit of certainty.

Why aren't Peta and Wes saying it seems to be like this?

You keep telling me what is really going on for me too?
 
Last edited:
peta9 said:
You can only fiddle with what you understand or think you understand of anything...still goes back to you, now doesn't it? That applies to everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

I think a large portion of the problems one deals with are simply inherited from the society one was raised in. Those problems aren't really of one's own making. Because we are taught to think about some things, to consider some issues to be problematic, and others not. This sort of conditioning comes simply with being taught a language and growing up within a society.

And some of these problems are formulated in a manner that says that they are important to us. Well, some of them actually are, and some might be suspicious and spuriously attributed to us. But how can we now, when our sense of self has already developed around these problems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top